veto_postmortem

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare the tool as readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it may correlate with past council RED verdicts, which implies a lookup behavior, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as whether it modifies state beyond read-only, or any required permissions. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description provides marginal additional context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently communicates the purpose, inputs, and outputs. It is front-loaded with the key action and result, containing no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While the description covers the main purpose and components of the output, it lacks details on the output format (e.g., markdown, text), how to interpret the correlation results, and whether there are any side effects. Given the presence of annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but could be more complete for a generation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already having a description. The description restates 'incident description + timeline' but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavylifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool takes an incident description and timeline and produces a blameless postmortem with five-whys root cause analysis, action items, and correlation with past council RED verdicts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like veto_rca and veto_council_debate by specifying its unique output components.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools such as veto_rca for root cause analysis or other postmortem-like tools. There are no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statements, and no mention of prerequisites or context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.